Talk:Victorian Certificate of Education

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I removed a link to two Christian Colleges in the "high performing schools" part and left MacRob, MHS and Bialik College there. The referenced article did not mention the removed schools at all and hence seems to be an attempt to plug the school. Ledward (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that students in the ninth and tenth years (in the Victorian/NSW sense, with a "Prep" grade before 1, so the 10th and 11th years) can study a single VCE unit per semester to increase their score.

Feel free to add this information yourself. TPK 07:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that they actually count towards your score do they, because I did a VCE subject in year 10 and on my statement of results last year for my yr12 subjects it made no mention of it --60.224.14.194 03:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) --- I feel that some aspects of this page contain errors or perhaps misplaced opinions. There also possible relevant additions and expansions that the article might require but I haven't examined them here. The revisions are these listed in the sections in which they occur in the article:[reply]

Introduction[edit]

  • Students do not neccessarily have to complete Year 11, eg. international students can study for and gain their VCE just by completing 5 or 6 3/4 subjects in year 12.
  • There seems to be no authority for the statement that the VCE is "one of the more rigorous education programs in the world". If there is authority perhaps it should be added, if not perhaps this statement should be removed as it constitutes a POV.

The VCE Structure[edit]

  • I feel this section could do with some structural revision, as this section contains most of the factual content of the article. Perhaps a subdivision like Subjects/Assessment/Moderation would be appropriate.
  • I believe the discussion of the statistical moderation of SACs is incorrect. Instead I think they make the mean and quartiles of the SAC marks equal to the mean and quartiles of the exam marks and in so doing fit students in according to their relative positions on the original SAC assessment. This means that outliers do not effect the outcome so much. Information to this effect can be found on the VCAA website.
  • The VCE is not accepted for admission into universities worldwide. It is at best only considered year 11 (AS Level) education in the UK under a certain ENTER score.

Criticisms[edit]

  • Given the revision of how internal assessment is moderated I think the first part of this section is perhaps less valid. In any case, further adjustment of the moderation process might render the SAC marks meaningless (the article does seem to support the view that SAC marks should just be moderated to match student's exam performance which would essentially render SAC marks inconsequential).
  • The comment that the VCE is advantageous to girls on the basis of their superior ability in English seems to me to be a prejudiced statement. Although there is statistical evidence to suggest that girls do better in the VCE (I'm not sure where the statistics are from); I know of no evidence which suggests they do much better at english than they do in other subjects and I doubt it exists. Also, the maths and science subjects in the VCE are marked up far more than the humanities subjects which would presumably in the opinion of the article as it is currently written aid boys in the VCE

Orizon 7 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

I agree. This article may need a tag for cleanup ;o --coblin 10:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...three months later. Yes, there's quite a bit to do. I'm not desperate to do it. But maybe in a month or so. After exams and what not. -orizon 11:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/statistics/subjectstats.html shows that girls do substantially better at english then boys. This, together with much other evidence from other sources suggesting that girls do better at English than boys in general, can be a large criticism of the VCE. English, being the only compulsory subject and which MUST be counted when calculating an ENTER score, could be seen as very disadvantagous to boys studying the VCE. One possible suggestion would be to remove the compulsory status of English, thereby making it fair and completely elective.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.255.66 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 October 2006

Leon... 10:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The section explaining moderation needs to describe the moderation process better, as scaling of different subjects (also possibly able to come under the heading "statistical moderation") has come under attack as well as the process which comes up with absolute SAC marks

Criticisms revamped (still needs cleanup - wikify)[edit]

Criticisms was cleared of what I believe was a POV. (The first line in the original implied that the VCE is near-perfect)

It still needs to be cleaned up. I do think of the girls/boys argument as a very very very unsupported fact, and there is hardly any evidence to show that is true. I think it should be removed. --coblin 09:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/statistics/subjectstats.html shows that girls do substantially better at english then boys. This, together with much other evidence from other sources suggesting that girls do better at English than boys in general, can be a large criticism of the VCE. English, being the only compulsory subject and which MUST be counted when calculating an ENTER score, could be seen as very disadvantagous to boys studying the VCE. One possible suggestion would be to remove the compulsory status of English, thereby making it fair and completely elective.

VCE wiki-linked[edit]

Why is almost every occurance of "VCE" wiki-linked in this article? The article is about VCE! —Daniel15 (Talk/Contribs) 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been fixed :) --Daniel15 (Talk/Contribs) 06:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vcaa banner logo.gif[edit]

Image:Vcaa banner logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HSC deserves mention in article[edit]

I would have liked to see a bit more of the history of the VCE in this article. For example, the year it replaced the HSC (1990 I believe?), the reasons for the change, and so forth. This belongs in the first or second paragraph. A few sentences even would suffice. Can someone do this? Davez621 (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this reference from the Victoria Public Records Office, although sadly it doesn't say very much about the qualification. I've added a sentence about it the introduction anyway, and will do the same at Higher School Certificate. One thing I haven't been able to establish, however, is whether the Victorian HSC and the New South Wales HSC were separate qualifications awarded by different bodies or one and the same. Hopefully someone else will know. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently they're different so I've made the necessary changes to reflect that. TheRetroGuy (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have now created Higher School Certificate (Victoria). TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.png[edit]

The image Image:Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to related resources[edit]

I propose that either or both of the following links be added to this article:
a) Link to www.topscores.info in the Resources section
b) Link to Bored of Studies in Wikipedia, or to www.boredofstudies.org as a "See Also"

Rationale. The rationale for the additions is taken from Wikipedia guidelines:

a) www.topscores.info
1. It contains "neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to .... amount of detail"
2. It is a site "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"
3. It is a site that "...contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
4. It is consistent with other links already present in the article.

b) Bored of Studies page (or to www.boredofstudies.org)
1. It is a site "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"
2. It is consistent with other links already present in the article.
3. Its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia is well established.

Rebuttal. The rebuttal to the negative case is:

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Both sites meet this requirement by hosting substantial information stores well beyond the scope of any article.

"Links mainly intended to promote a website." The links are intended purely to add value to the Wikipedia topic in question. No promotional motivation is involved.

"Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.". Bored of Studies contains a discussion forum as only one of its many functions. It is not a social networking site. The guideline does not apply to www.topscores.info.

"Links to blogs and personal web pages". Does not apply.

"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." Bored of Studies is relevant by its coverage of course structure, subjects and UAIs/ENTERs. www.topscores.info is relevant by covering assessment outcomes and awards, both of which are outlined briefly within the Wikipedia article itself.

Request. My previous edits along these lines have been reverted by one individual Wikipedia editor in particular. This is a call for a consensus from the Wikipedia community on the issue. Independent views from third parties are welcomed.

Nilmania (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables[edit]

I think the two tables would look better if they were side-by-side or left/right aligned

Darklight Shadows 20:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DarklitShadow: Feel free to comment here:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 22#Template:Victorian Certificate of Education subjects. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Victorian Certificate of Education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects that a lawyer does[edit]

Now list them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:3:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to do that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unscored and scored VETs not distinguished[edit]

There is a large difference between unscored VETs (which will count as an increment of 10% of the fourth subject in your primary 4 regardless of what you score in them) and scored VET subjects (which are scored as any normal subject would be). These are all in one big table together with nothing mentioning the difference Abennyec (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have good knowledge of how it all works, and have references, feel free to add to the article yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply is it ok to use primary sources for this https://vtac.edu.au/files/pdf/reports/scaling-report-23-24.pdf has a list of VET subjects that could count as primary 4 for ATAR (at least this year). https://vtac.edu.au/atar-scaling-guide-2025.html explains the difference (under VCE VET studies). On the pages for individual unscored VET subjects they are listed as unscored (eg: https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/curriculum/vet/vce-vet-programs/Pages/appliedlanguage.aspx under ATAR contribution) however i do not have a comprehensive list of unscored VETs and VTAC could change which ones are scored and unscored. Seems to be not well documented in general. Thanks for your time Abennyec (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victorian_Certificate_of_Education&oldid=1205927839"